Butler - Why Not Schedule Them Every Year?

[eb59]

[njhoya78]

This actually makes some sense. Butler football plays in the Pioneer League, with a couple of games against better competition (Youngstown State and Princeton this past season). Why not indeed?

[eb59]

This made me think of other possible teams that make-up possible "Dream" schools to include on the schedule any given year:

Long Term Goal - Someday aspire to play teams like Army, Navy, ECU, Etc. 1 x per year, but we are not there yet!

1 x Per Season - "Big Name" East Coast FCS Reach Teams:

- NOVA
- Rhodie
- W&M
- Delaware
- New Hamps
- Richmond (If they will have us again)

Other Non-Conference Each Year:

- Butler
- Ivy's
- Howard

Conference Schedule:

- Patriot League

Very Occasional Scheduling:

- Pioneer League
- VMI
- Citadel
- SWAC Teams (They are traditionally not very good and would likely love to play Gtown)

Thoughts?

[DFW HOYA]

Always enjoy scheduling talk, but it's worth asking..when we will be "there" yet?

Georgetown has almost an unnatural fear of scheduling "up", which is why Marist returns on the schedule every year and while 2019 figures to be much of the same. "A scholarship team would kill us", they say. Funny, Georgetown played six 60-scholarship teams last year and lived to tell the tale.

As for those scholarship teams, Lafayette played Army, lost 31-13. Fordham played Charlotte, lost by 24. No embarassment. Now, Georgetown doesn't have to play BC but this idea that the Ivy League are the only teams we can legitimately stand on the field anymore with is not grounded in reality.

That opinion aside, here's what I would like to see, but do not expect, in scheduling:

Five home games a year once Cooper Field is built, one marquee home game a year at Audi Field

One I-A game

One or two safety games (expect to win): Rotate Butler, Marist, and Wagner

One regional stretch game (expect to compete): Rotate Howard, Hampton, and VMI

One reach game (survive and advance): Rotate Villanova, W&M, and one Ivy, such as Pennsylvania and Princeton. But just one. Ivies don't respect Georgetown and the fans really don't care if it's Brown or Bryant out there.

I-A?. Yeah, I said it. Schedule a game every so often in a recruiting area where Georgetown can play a low-tier I-A school** and get some visibility.

**Note: I am aware of the "counter" issue but there are ways to address this.

And for those who will always say "it's not our time", or "we'd stand no chance," tell that to Drake. That's a memory they will cherish for a lifetime.

www.espn.com/college-football/game?gameId=401082044

[Problem of Dog]

Dec 21, 2018 14:06:55 GMT -5 DFW HOYA said:

Always enjoy scheduling talk, but it's worth asking..when we will be "there" yet?

Georgetown has almost an unnatural fear of scheduling "up", which is why Marist returns on the schedule every year and while 2019 figures to be much of the same. "A scholarship team would kill us", they say. Funny, Georgetown played six 60-scholarship teams last year and lived to tell the tale.

As for those scholarship teams, Lafayette played Army, lost 31-13. Fordham played Charlotte, lost by 24. No embarassment. Now, Georgetown doesn't have to play BC but this idea that the Ivy League are the only teams we can legitimately stand on the field anymore with is not grounded in reality.

That opinion aside, here's what I would like to see, but do not expect, in scheduling:

Five home games a year once Cooper Field is built, one marquee home game a year at Audi Field

One I-A game: see below

One or two safety games (expect to win): Rotate Butler, Marist, and Wagner

One regional stretch game (expect to compete): Rotate Howard, Hampton, and VMI

One reach game (survive and advance): Rotate Villanova, W&M, and one Ivy, such as Pennsylvania and Princeton. But just one. Ivies don't respect Georgetown and the fans really don't care if it's Brown or Bryant out there.

I-A?. Yeah, I said it. Schedule a game every so often in a recruiting area where Georgetown can play a low-tier I-A school** and get some visibility, such as:

1. Texas/Louisiana: (Rice, Tulane, etc. maybe even go into I-AA for Grambling or Southern. Would a GU-Grambling return game sell at Audi Field?)
2. Florida: (FIU, FAU, etc.)
3. West Coast: (San Jose St., UNLV, etc.--nice new stadium arriving there, too.)

**Note: I am aware of the "counter" issue but there are ways to address this.

And for those who will always say "it's not our time", or "we'd stand no chance," tell that to Drake. That's a memory they will cherish for a lifetime.

www.espn.com/college-football/game?gameId=401082044

It's disappointing that you're as informed as you are and you post things that are this unrealistic (re: FBS games). No FBS team is going to schedule us when we're not a counter. Not worth the dollars and there's no other benefits to the game for them. (Drake was a last minute replacement for Iowa State who wanted a 12th game on their schedule after they were already bowl eligible. Not comparable.)

[DFW HOYA]

Dec 22, 2018 0:21:38 GMT -5 Problem of Dog said:

It's disappointing that you're as informed as you are and you post things that are this unrealistic (re: FBS games). No FBS team is going to schedule us when we're not a counter. Not worth the dollars and there's no other benefits to the game for them. (Drake was a last minute replacement for Iowa State who wanted a 12th game on their schedule after they were already bowl eligible. Not comparable.)

The discussion is not about now, but down the road. Why is it unrealistic to aspire to play schools that Bucknell and Lafayette are able to play today?

A "counter" does not always require scholarships to be opponents for for bowl eligible teams. This is why schools like Wagner and Duquesne, with far fewer grants than the number required for bowl eligible teams to schedule, can still get I-A games because of their use of financial aid equivalencies. Yet, Georgetown doesn't want to quantify its financial aid as "equivalencies" which could give it the ability to schedule better teams at some point without the need for football scholarships.

But let's park the I-A talk for a moment. Georgetown can do better than Marist or Davidson and should certainly strive to schedule teams like Howard, Villanova or William and Mary, all of whom play at 63 scholarships. Saying that "we don't have scholarships so we can't ever hope to compete" is a false argument. How is Georgetown able to compete with the likes of Lafayette or Bucknell or Holy Cross, all of which have 60 scholarships, just three fewer than what Villanova offers? Or should we drop them as well because they don't fit our nonscholarship model?

[RusskyHoya]

Dec 22, 2018 1:09:50 GMT -5 DFW HOYA said:

Dec 22, 2018 0:21:38 GMT -5 Problem of Dog said:

It's disappointing that you're as informed as you are and you post things that are this unrealistic (re: FBS games). No FBS team is going to schedule us when we're not a counter. Not worth the dollars and there's no other benefits to the game for them. (Drake was a last minute replacement for Iowa State who wanted a 12th game on their schedule after they were already bowl eligible. Not comparable.)

The discussion is not about now, but down the road. Why is it unrealistic to aspire to play schools that Bucknell and Lafayette are able to play today?

A "counter" does not always require scholarships to be opponents for for bowl eligible teams. This is why schools like Wagner and Duquesne, with far fewer grants than the number required for bowl eligible teams to schedule, can still get I-A games because of their use of financial aid equivalencies. Yet, Georgetown doesn't want to quantify its financial aid as "equivalencies" which could give it the ability to schedule better teams at some point without the need for football scholarships.

But let's park the I-A talk for a moment. Georgetown can do better than Marist or Davidson and should certainly strive to schedule teams like Howard, Villanova or William and Mary, all of whom play at 63 scholarships. Saying that "we don't have scholarships so we can't ever hope to compete" is a false argument. How is Georgetown able to compete with the likes of Lafayette or Bucknell or Holy Cross, all of which have 60 scholarships, just three fewer than what Villanova offers? Or should we drop them as well because they don't fit our nonscholarship model?

Are we sure that Bucknell and Holy Cross have 60 schollies? My recollection was that they didn't have the funding yet to get up to the PL cap.

Anyway... I suppose there's two ways to look at this question. One view, which I take to be yours, DFW, is that the Hoyas' ability to compete with some scholarship programs it has played is evidence that they would be able to compete with other scholarship programs, ones with a higher profile, name recognition, etc.

An alternate view is that scholarships, while a very important feature, are only part of a larger package of what makes a program attractive. Under this view, Georgetown's ability to remain competitive with some scholarship programs is a function of its positive non-scholarship attributes relative to those programs, which help make up some or all of the scholarship advantage. I've made the argument before - and I remember you weren't a fan of it, DFW - that the other PL schools have the relative disadvantage of being mostly small-ish liberal arts colleges in unexciting (Bethlehem, Lewisburg) or downright depressing (Worcester and, of course, Allentown, which has a Billy Joel song written about how depressed and hardscrabble it is) locales. The 'total package' Georgetown can offer, while not especially attractive to most I-AA caliber players, is not that far removed in either direction from the rest of the PL or from, say, Wagner or Duquesne. Or maybe even Butler!

The equation could look very different when looking at a different I-AA scholarship program like Villanova or W&M, though, just as it looks very different when comparing Georgetown to a technically-non-scholarship Ivy program. It may well be that the structural imbalances are just too great compared to CAA or Big South or maybe even the better off NEC schools at this point.

Even if we take all that to be true, of course, it still leaves the question of "ok, so what's our plan?" What is our vision - our desired target state and strategy for achieving it? That Georgetown seems incapable of honestly articulating it in public - and, most of the time, in private as well - is the reason we keep rehashing arguments like this ad nauseum.

[DFW HOYA]

Dec 22, 2018 22:51:51 GMT -5 RusskyHoya said:

Are we sure that Bucknell and Holy Cross have 60 schollies? My recollection was that they didn't have the funding yet to get up to the PL cap.

Anyway... I suppose there's two ways to look at this question. One view, which I take to be yours, DFW, is that the Hoyas' ability to compete with some scholarship programs it has played is evidence that they would be able to compete with other scholarship programs, ones with a higher profile, name recognition, etc.

An alternate view is that scholarships, while a very important feature, are only part of a larger package of what makes a program attractive. Under this view, Georgetown's ability to remain competitive with some scholarship programs is a function of its positive non-scholarship attributes relative to those programs, which help make up some or all of the scholarship advantage. I've made the argument before - and I remember you weren't a fan of it, DFW - that the other PL schools have the relative disadvantage of being mostly small-ish liberal arts colleges in unexciting (Bethlehem, Lewisburg) or downright depressing (Worcester and, of course, Allentown, which has a Billy Joel song written about how depressed and hardscrabble it is) locales. The 'total package' Georgetown can offer, while not especially attractive to most I-AA caliber players, is not that far removed in either direction from the rest of the PL or from, say, Wagner or Duquesne. Or maybe even Butler!

The equation could look very different when looking at a different I-AA scholarship program like Villanova or W&M, though, just as it looks very different when comparing Georgetown to a technically-non-scholarship Ivy program. It may well be that the structural imbalances are just too great compared to CAA or Big South or maybe even the better off NEC schools at this point.

Even if we take all that to be true, of course, it still leaves the question of "ok, so what's our plan?" What is our vision - our desired target state and strategy for achieving it? That Georgetown seems incapable of honestly articulating it in public - and, most of the time, in private as well - is the reason we keep rehashing arguments like this ad nauseum.

As usual, your posts are solid and to the point, even if my attempts don't always succeed.

What is the Georgetown plan? What is its vision? If we collectively don't know, how would anyone else, much less a 17 year old?

As to Bucknell and HC:

1. The Bison opens with Temple in 2019 and have a two game series with Army in 2020-21. Given how Army did today vs. Houston in the Armed Forces Bowl (Cadets 70, Cougars 14), that doesn't look too promising for Bucknell, but they wouldn't have been able to get these scheduled in the first place if they weren't a counter.

2. Holy Cross played BC this year and gets Navy and Syracuse in 2019 and UConn in 2021.

[RusskyHoya]

Dec 22, 2018 23:02:58 GMT -5 DFW HOYA said:

As usual, your posts are solid and to the point, even if my attempts don't always succeed.

What is the Georgetown plan? What is its vision? If we collectively don't know, how would anyone else, much less a 17 year old?

As to Bucknell and HC:

1. The Bison opens with Temple in 2019 and have a two game series with Army in 2020-21. Given how Army did today vs. Houston in the Armed Forces Bowl (Cadets 70, Cougars 14), that doesn't look too promising for Bucknell, but they wouldn't have been able to get these scheduled in the first place if they weren't a counter.

2. Holy Cross played BC this year and gets Navy and Syracuse in 2019 and UConn in 2021.

'Preciate the hat tip. I play a strategy consultant during the day, so I find strategic incoherence and/or opacity to be especially agitating coming from an institution like Georgetown. To be clear, I think there *is* an... 'understanding' that passes for a strategy: we're going to keep making incremental improvements to all of the non-scholarship parts of the package and continue a concerted effort toward University-wide improvements in financial aid until such point as we are a de facto Ivy and able to compete as such (only with the added benefit of being playoff-eligible). But how long will that take, what are the interim and final milestones and measures of success? It's all so very nebulous.

The counter/scholarship/scheduling situation is little confusing to me. It may be that the service academies are just outliers - after all, Army played (and lost to!) Yale in 2014 and scored only a 21-14 win over then-decidedly-non-scholarship Bucknell in 2015. Of course, it's a practically unrecognizable Army program now, compared to those days not so long ago.

[eb59]

"I play a strategy consultant during the day, so I find strategic incoherence and/or opacity to be especially agitating coming from an institution like Georgetown" @ Russky - In your professional opinion, Is it possible that Gtown has a strategy which is to be cheap, very / Very cheap??

Oh an in addition to this, they generally seem terrified of the area Zoning / HoA committees...which pretty much every other school would ignore.

I'm really proud of the team this season, I expect they will get better slowly over time with increased recruiting of kids from TX, GA, OH & CA.

However, I wish the school would recognize that with a more support from Healy I think we could in short order be an annual contender in Patriot and competitive against some of the teams being discussed here (Excluding the Current Black Knights).

An annual and almost conscious Lack of Institutional Support is in my opinion the continuing death knell of the program.

[RusskyHoya]

Hah, well, I guess the first thing I'd say is that I don't think my professional opinion is really much implicated here. I'd like to think what I do for a living has some positive bearing on my ability to look at how organizations behave, but in this particular case, I think what's far more important is understanding how academia, and specifically Georgetown, operates. That, plus some basic pattern recognition, goes a long way. Put another way: as a would-be strategist, I am annoyed that Georgetown doesn't clearly and openly write down its approach toward football... but I can read it between the lines just as well.

Just for extra validation, though, I do as a rule discuss these and many other topics with a friend of mine who has me beat both on the organizational strategy side (he has an MBA, my grad work was in security studies, so a rather different kind of strategy) and the Georgetown side (he worked at the University for longer and in more strategic places than I did). For the moment, at least, I've gotten the thumbs up that I'm on reasonably solid ground.

I'll start off by saying that when I evaluate possible courses of action, I try to be very deliberate in distinguishing what is positively or physically possible - it's within the realistic realm of possibility - from what is normatively or politically possible. It's a critical distinction to make when assessing Georgetown's institutional behavior, and the best illustration that comes to mind is an issue that is both a perennial topic of conversation over on the main board and directly relevant to the "Zoning / HoA committees" you mentioned - the notion of an on-campus basketball arena.

In my best Obama voice: let me be clear. An on-campus basketball arena is a positive, physical impossibility, as is a football stadium significantly larger than the existing Cooper Field footprint. A couple of reasons why this is the case follow.

1. Georgetown is a Federal historic district, and an entity of the U.S. Government - the U.S. Commission on Fine Arts, largely working through its subordinate Old Georgetown Board - has veto power over some of the most minute details of the built environment. Signs and awnings - basic signs! - have to pass muster. The will of this body simply cannot be ignored.

2. Next, we have the DC Zoning Commission. By District law, Georgetown is only allowed to operate as a university (that is, a non-residential use) in Georgetown (a residential area) on the basis of a Zoning Commission-approved Campus Plan. Failure to secure approval of such a Plan, or violating the conditions of an approved Plan, represents an existential risk to the University. You might think I'm exaggerating, but the reality is that Georgetown is not in a college town in which it is the 10,000 lb gorilla. Even as one of DC's biggest private employers, it cannot act as if it is too big to fail and will always be rescued by the powers that be. Most GU students, faculty, and staff do not live, vote, or pay income tax in the District. Their voices, and the institution's voice, matter much less than they would elsewhere, and they matter less than those of Georgetown residents.

3. Lastly, rather than an "HoA," what the Georgetown residents have is an elected body, the Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC 2E in this case). By District law, the DC government must give the ANC's views "great weight" in its deliberations, and the ANC basically has automatic interested party status to any dispute that deals with Georgetown. In other places, there are many levels and flavors of official that can potentially be swayed and played against each other: city officials legislative and executive, county officials legislative and executive, state house members and state senators, the state executive. In DC, it's just the ANCs, the DC Council Members, and the Mayor. And, naturally, wealthy Georgetown residents collectively have much more influence over each of these bodies than does the University or its parties (many of whom seem to spend more time and energy fighting the University over their pet causes as they do advocating on its overall behalf).

Each of these three represent hard veto points, backed by the force of law. The University cannot simply ignore them or overcome them through sheer willpower. To believe otherwise is to engage in the sort of magical, Green Lantern Theory-style thinking that pervades far too many institutions today.

---------------

Having established that there are some hard constraints - not always immediately apparent to fans - within which this University must operate, we can now move on to the normative/political. One of the primary reasons that institutional willpower cannot simply trump all is that, as hinted at above, a University is not a monolith. Instead, it is an assemblage of many constituencies, some of which are at any given time in opposition to the 'party line' of "The President and Directors of Georgetown College." It is not enough for Jack DeGioia and the Board of Directors to snap their fingers in order to make it so, and they rightly spend much of their time navigating and placating the network of stakeholders upon which they depend for continued institutional (and personal!) survival and success.

The football program and its fans are merely one constituency among many, and it is by no means one of the bigger or more powerful ones. It has some things going for it, sure. But when there is fungible yet limited money and leadership backing on the line, football is simply not going to take precedence over, say, basketball or the School of Foreign Service or the commitment to need-blind/full-need admissions or the public commitment to social justice as contemporaneously understood. From the perspective of the constituencies backing each of those interests, the modest level of support football receives is not a case of the University being "cheap, very / Very cheap." It is, rather, a demonstration of the University prioritizing its limited financial and political resources in line with the wishes of its constituencies.

Once this dynamic of positive (RFK and Audi Field as more than one-off options fall into this category) and normative constraints is understood, the largely unspoken and unwritten - but reasonably well-defined - strategy for Georgetown football zooms into focus. As do the reasons why that strategy, as uninspiring as it may be, is pretty close to as good as fans can hope to get under our current reality, short of some extraordinary sums of money being earmarked explicitly for the program.

[DFW HOYA]

Dec 28, 2018 18:49:58 GMT -5 RusskyHoya said:

In my best Obama voice: let me be clear. An on-campus basketball arena is a positive, physical impossibility, as is a football stadium significantly larger than the existing Cooper Field footprint.

Agree with one, disagree on the other, though not in that order. Some more thoughts later this weekend.

[eb59]

Thanks Russky and I look forward to DFW's retort to item 2!

Personally, I am actually quite happy with what I hope to be just Phase 1 of the Football Stadium (Cooper Field). With the state of the current attendance and scheduling we are good for a few years and it is at least in the design pics quite a massive improvement over the MSF.

Not just for sports either, I expect that the new stadium actually would be an awesome environment for all kinds of new events that have not been held on campus previously (Concerts, Improved Graduation Venue, DMV High School Playoffs for FB / Lax / Others, the possibilities are actually endless if the school takes the initiative to market the venue) and it would be awesome if in say 2-3 years it really has become the Heartbeat / Center of Campus jewel that it could be and a place that students flow to almost by habit - including on Game Day Saturday's)!

However, in what I call typical Gtown fashion we are finally getting a small "College Level Venue" yes - but we are only getting 1/2 of a real "College Level Venue" and it will most certainly feel that way when you sit and look across the pitch at a chainlink fence and dorm building. Despite how sweet it might feel walking into the stadium, seeing a ticket office, concession facilities and even bathrooms - amazing! It will be short lived in my personal opinion when you look into a vacuum of incompletion across the way and the past 20 years of disappointment with an institution that just never seems to care or do things right will come flooding back as you get the sensation of, "This Could Be Amazing - IF"....

Instead of a really special place that could be amazing, I fear it's going to feel incomplete and like a decent "High School Venue" - unless of course we continue to pray for some massive donation to fund a Phase 2 - Visitor Side complex equal to the Home side in quality if not quantity.

Finally, I will leave 3 somewhat related items of curiosity for me:

1) Do you think that there will be small / box type seating on the new Press Box level - with catering / booze, this could be a $$$ maker.

2) Does anyone have any idea how much it might cost to Rent Audi Stadium for a game? If it seats 18k, how many seats might we have to sell on a Saturday in the future to at least break even renting it out? This would need to be against a team with a much bigger football name / draw than Harvard to be feasible - but why the hell not!

3) Scheduling - DFW I'd like your thoughts on WHY we don't get more creative with the Start Times for our games? If we played on Thursday / Friday night like most of the MAC teams do for TV time, we would not be competing for students who want to stay in their dorms and watch I-A football all day over heading down to watch Gtown vs Whoever - over Bama & Ohio State! Beyond that, I think night games are way more fun / exciting to students and I would imagine that this alone even on Saturday nights would draw better than 11am or 2pm on Saturday.

[RusskyHoya]

Dec 31, 2018 14:59:04 GMT -5 eb59 said:

Thanks Russky and I look forward to DFW's retort to item 2!

I'm looking forward to it as well - interested to see if his views have changed any since his very good writeup in the first part of 2018 on the potential futures of McDonough.

Dec 31, 2018 14:59:04 GMT -5 eb59 said:

Personally, I am actually quite happy with what I hope to be just Phase 1 of the Football Stadium (Cooper Field). With the state of the current attendance and scheduling we are good for a few years and it is at least in the design pics quite a massive improvement over the MSF.

Not just for sports either, I expect that the new stadium actually would be an awesome environment for all kinds of new events that have not been held on campus previously (Concerts, Improved Graduation Venue, DMV High School Playoffs for FB / Lax / Others, the possibilities are actually endless if the school takes the initiative to market the venue) and it would be awesome if in say 2-3 years it really has become the Heartbeat / Center of Campus jewel that it could be and a place that students flow to almost by habit - including on Game Day Saturday's)

While there are occasional other uses like the ones you described (although I've seen zero indication there are any plans to move away from the current graduation arrangement), it's unlikely we'll see much of an increase in such programming anytime soon. If anything, it'll probably be the opposite, once the soccer teams have to make Cooper Field their quasi-permanent home for the better part of a decade (or, knowing Georgetown, more) while the 'Yates/Shaw Field Castle Maneuver' is executed. The field surface is already oversubscribed in terms of time and intensity of use. A renovated Kehoe Field (see this thread) will alleviate some of that pressure in the interim, and I don't have any hard numbers to go off of, but turf replacement is costly enough that the benefits of a greater event load would have to be really significant to make it worthwhile. I'm not sure high school playoffs make the grade there.

Ironically, the extensive (over?)use of Cooper Field means that it is much closer to your idea of it being a "Heartbeat/Center of Campus" than the vast majority of stadiums on college campuses, which are by-and-large kept padlocked and reserved for the exclusive use of the football program, or at least varsity athletics. Heck, the D-I standard is now to have multiple practice fields...some with not-insignificant seating...reserved for football use.

Dec 31, 2018 14:59:04 GMT -5 eb59 said:

However, in what I call typical Gtown fashion we are finally getting a small "College Level Venue" yes - but we are only getting 1/2 of a real "College Level Venue" and it will most certainly feel that way when you sit and look across the pitch at a chainlink fence and dorm building. Despite how sweet it might feel walking into the stadium, seeing a ticket office, concession facilities and even bathrooms - amazing! It will be short lived in my personal opinion when you look into a vacuum of incompletion across the way and the past 20 years of disappointment with an institution that just never seems to care or do things right will come flooding back as you get the sensation of, "This Could Be Amazing - IF"....

This was sort of the point of my post... it's not so much that the University "just never seems to care or do things right," it's that the institutional requirement to care most about - and actually do - the *right* things as defined by its various constituencies means that the MSF has gotten relatively short shrift over the years. Meanwhile, the things that have been prioritized have come out looking pretty good, if delayed by the recession and other issues. Arrupe Hall, while wedged into an awkward footprint, is a marvel. The Hariri Building and Regents Hall are both top-of-the-line, extremely impressive facilities. The Healy Family Student Center honestly still shocks me every time I walk in with how well done it is, especially compared to what was there before.

It's no fun when you care very much about something and most people in your community don't. But that's a situation lots of people find themselves in, at Georgetown and in life generally. It's still possible to achieve some significant successes even within the resulting constraints, but it does require being... strategic. And the "generating stakeholder buy-in" aspect of strategy is indeed an area where Georgetown has often done a middling-to-poor job.

Dec 31, 2018 14:59:04 GMT -5 eb59 said:

Instead of a really special place that could be amazing, I fear it's going to feel incomplete and like a decent "High School Venue" - unless of course we continue to pray for some massive donation to fund a Phase 2 - Visitor Side complex equal to the Home side in quality if not quantity.

This is a good example of McDonough's failure to effectively message strategy and plans. You shouldn't have to obsessively track campus planning developments the way I do to know that the visitor side is going to have to remain fallow for quite while in order to provide the wider space needed for a soccer pitch. I understand not wanting to get ahead of yourself when all of these plans remain in the notional stage and so much is open to change, but that's not an excuse for just letting information come out in dribs and drabs and leaving it to people to piece it all together.

More understandable is the lack of details regarding just how much of the Cooper gift is allocated to physical improvements to the stadium, including whether any 'Phase 2' money is part of that package. I would assume not, but it is a long-term arrangement rather than a lump sum, and stranger things have happened...

[DFW HOYA]

First thanks for the kind words on what is a good mix of ideas, suggestions, and the usual frustration with the Georgetown bureaucracy that is somewhere between the US Postal Service and the Roman Curia.

I'll discuss this in two separate posts. First, do I think it is possible to do more with Cooper Field? Conceptually yes, but procedurally, no.

Cooper Field (nee Multi-Sport Facility) was one of four projects proposed near the end of the O'Donovan administration by Athletics, along with 2) a McDonough renovation, 3) a new soccer/track facility and 4) a softball field at the SW Quad. It's the only one who made it forward. Maybe O'Donovan was supportive, or maybe he was winding down and would leave it to his successor, but each of these ground to a halt when Jack DeGioia took over. Any CEO worth his salt doesn't like to inherit someone else's to-do list and it was felt by some higher-ups that Athletics overstepped its bounds by not following the time honored top-down approach when it comes to facilities planning. (FYI--SFS is poking this bear by discussing a major renovation of the ICC, which may not in the near-term plans.) That the MSF even survived was likely a function of the $11.9 million it raised in 2003-04, even if what was proposed to those early donors bears absolutely no resemblance to what they will get, and the fact that there was no pressing project previously identified for the former Harbin Field in the 1985 plans, which had been labeled as an underground "podium" (parking lot).

Jack DeGioia has a very distinct view of what Georgetown football ought to be, which drives how much Rob Sgarlata can and cannot do in his role. I respect that, but would suggest that Georgetown's dawdling on the facility issue cost it credibility with some Ivy schools who could have been allies in scheduling amidst questions of the future sustainability of non-scholarship football in the Northeast, which is basically down to ten schools: the Ivies, Georgetown, and Marist. Maybe it's coincidental that the reduced Cooper footprint will look a lot more like Tenney Stadium at Marist that what was originally proposed.

As someone who made his first capital gift to GU for the MSF, I'm likely to be disappointed by the outcome, not visually, but by the sheer lack of focus it's been given all these years--not by Athletics, but by the institutional process. In some ways, finishing this is akin to how the University dealt with Village A--after fits and stops, and a failure to secure a naming gift because Tim Healy wanted something more than its original name ("Carrollton"), the construction was a case of "just get it done." That a dorm still has a temporary placeholder after 40 years is nonsensical on many levels, about as nonsensical as building ADA-accessible units (we called them "handicapped apartments" in the 1980's) on the top floor where in the case of fire no one could get down by elevator. In some way, this project has that "just get it done" aura about it.

Back to Cooper/MSF. Yes, there should be permanent east stands and yes, it could be done, but two other projects are in play: 1) University interest in even more housing near Harbin. If approved that will tie up a lot of space for construction equipment which permanent stands may get in the way of, and 2) when the Yates infrastructure becomes untenable, Shaw Field will likely be lost to construction which will leave soccer homeless. Cooper as a football field is not NCAA regulation for soccer (115'x 75'), but extending its field into where there could be stands might just cut it. Soccer fans shudder at playing "the beautiful game" on overworked FieldTurf but this is a likely outcome, just like Cooper/MSF is one of the only Division I field hockey facilities which does not play on wet Astroturf. And let's be frank--if there were 2,000 people on a wait list for seats, this might not even be a discussion.

Amidst all this, there is a saving grace that football was not exiled to War Memorial Stadium in Arlington or some sort of public park in Bethesda so that the field would have become yet another underground parking lot. Out of sight, out of mind at GU is usually out of luck.

For my two cents, and that's all they are, I'd like to see the temporary stands remain on the east end and allow cameras to show a full crowd on the west and not scenic views of the basement of Harbin on Stadium TV. Another alternative would be to employ what is used at places like Mississippi State--temporary box seats where fans could rent out five or seat "boxes" of 16-20 seats each, maybe get some special concessions and a couple of monitors to watch the game in style. I've got to think some people (or classes) would take advantage of it. Here's an example:






N.B.: I am a proponent of an annual game at Audi Field for local visibility, for recruiting, for student interest, and for competitive scheduling. Thee number of schools who want to plat at Cooper is not a large group. Harvard at RFK had more energy in it than 20 years of games on campus, at least for the first quarter. A game with Villanova would be a excellent opponent for such a venue, and then build from there. On the other hand, after the last two decades of interest I do not believe any Ivy or Patriot opponent would justify the expense.

The McDonough discussion follows tomorrow.

[DFW HOYA]

As a follow-up to the discussion above, thoughts on McDonough.

As discussed last year (http://www.hoyasaxa.com/sports/archives/022018.htm), I think Georgetown could do something serious with improving McDonough but chooses not to. So many times, the NIMBY element gets waved in the air when in many cases it doesn't apply. The neighbors didn't go into warp drive with Medstar in a project that is many, many times larger than a gym. They didn't throw up a legal fight when Cooper Field was projected at 4,602 seats, ostensibly less now.

The loudest noises in the neighborhood adhere to a common principle: "Will it affect my real estate value?" Letting kids live in Burleith is perceived as a net negative, while projects deep in the campus do not (e.g., Healey Family Center). A larger capacity McD (not a new building) passes this test. Why?

First, OGB and DC Fine Arts Commission hearings are predicated upon external changes to any home, business or facility. What someone does inside the walls is, outside of common permits, acceptable. The 2000 plans were exactly that--an internal refurb. Quoting Joe Lang from the HOYA in 2000, "The neighbors have reacted well to the plan....if the University can find alternatives for students to socialize on campus, they won’t get into as much trouble in the neighborhood. This is what will sell with the people in the neighborhood."

Second, there is a square footage ratio issue that Georgetown maintains with the city; that the ratio of constructed square feet to acreage must not exceed a fixed ratio. An existing refurb wouldn't impact square footage, though cubic footage might be at issue with a dig-down; in either case, a refurb shouldn't affect that big number.

Third, the 2000 refurb plan was thought to be a negative impact to athletic operations as construction would effect locker rooms, team storage, and the like. The Thompson Center and (maybe) room under Cooper Field's stands addressed some of these concerns. Finding a home court for volleyball, women's basketball, and a year of Kenner League ball is not insignificant, but not material, either.

A 6,000 seat facility won't set the neighborhood on fire if planned correctly. Every day, thousands of workers get to Georgetown and get out of town through a mix of public and private transit options. Scheduling games on weekend and on break where GU can leverage the existing transit policies offers a way to build a no-net-increase in the number of vehicles in the neighborhood. Forcing people to use Metro and GUTS buses across Key Bridge is one option--I'll pass on the gondola talk for now. Mindful that students could/should occupy more seats in on-campus games as a matter of good practice, not all campus games need to be offered through a season ticket package. Bottom line, a 6,000 seat gym does not force 6,000 cars into Georgetown, far from it. Homecoming draws well over 4,000 guests in campus and Commencement/Reunion even more, and it's manageable. Properly supported by the University, this would be as well.

The $22 million figure quoted for the dig down to get to 7,200 seats can be probably tripled in today's world. Villanova refurbed the John E. DuPont Pavilion for $65 million, and had both donor and university support. McDonough has neither of these. The donors limped to the finish on the Thompson Center and as noted above, Georgetown likes to set its own cadence on projects and Athletics isn't going to pick a fight about it.

Any work on McDonough is probably behind, in no particular order:

Soon: Downtown Campus for Public Policy
Soon: New dorm near Harbin
Sooner: Academic building adjacent to Regents
Someday: Lauinger expansion
Someday: Reiss refurb or tear-down
Someday: ICC upgrades
Within 10 Years: Yates rebuild or relocation

This project would absolutely be a win for the University and for campus life in general, if only to stop the tons of dollars lost each year paying rent to Monumental Sports for empty crowds in December, but the institutional will just isn't there. Joe Lang's 2000 plan sold it as a "convocation center" but in today's individualistic climate, it's not as vital.

Ryan Gym was built for a College population of less than 200, McDonough was built for a campus population of under 3,000. By the early 2020's, there will as many as 6,000 resident students at or around GU and no place to house them for an event, basketball or otherwise. The 2000 plan absolutely deserves a closer look, but probably not in the current administration.

[RusskyHoya]

I suppose I should tackle the topics separately as well.

Jan 1, 2019 20:31:57 GMT -5 DFW HOYA said:

Jack DeGioia has a very distinct view of what Georgetown football ought to be, which drives how much Rob Sgarlata can and cannot do in his role. I respect that, but would suggest that Georgetown's dawdling on the facility issue cost it credibility with some Ivy schools who could have been allies in scheduling amidst questions of the future sustainability of non-scholarship football in the Northeast, which is basically down to ten schools: the Ivies, Georgetown, and Marist.

I'm not sure if you're using "distinct" here in the sense of "specific" or in the sense of "different from (most) others.'" Either way... JJD's views are, if anything, more pro-football than many members of the Board of Directors and certain compared to the faculty. The Ivy football partisans might wish that Georgetown would step up its game closer to their level, but they're facing the same kinds of larger challenges on their own campuses, albeit in a much less resource-constrained environment. They keep football around for essentially the same reasons that Georgetown does and aren't going to make a lot of noise in any event.

Jan 1, 2019 20:31:57 GMT -5 DFW HOYA said:

That a dorm still has a temporary placeholder after 40 years is nonsensical on many levels, about as nonsensical as building ADA-accessible units (we called them "handicapped apartments" in the 1980's) on the top floor where in the case of fire no one could get down by elevator. In some way, this project has that "just get it done" aura about it.

My understanding is that any fire likely wouldn't be able to jump between blocks, so a wheelchair user could simply move to a different block using the connecting catwalks. Not optimal, but passable from a life safety standpoint. Anyway, agreed about the "'just get it done' aura..." but presumably that's better than an aura of "let's just forget about it."

While the progressive downgrades in capacity and 'impressiveness of renderings' have been disappointing, in this instance (unlike with, say, an academic building) there is a significant downside to a larger price tag from a perception perspective. Students and faculty, certainly, but on balance alumni as well simply do not prioritize football, and would take a large expenditure as a significant opportunity cost at best and an affront at worst. The whole MSF moniker was chosen in the first place to try to defang some of that by emphasizing the fact that it's not just a football facility. So, in the end, the realistic range for what was possible likely shrunk to a point where what we're getting is not too far from the best that could be achieved, absent some truly ardent and deep-pocketed additional donor(s) materializing.

Jan 1, 2019 20:31:57 GMT -5 DFW HOYA said:

Back to Cooper/MSF. Yes, there should be permanent east stands and yes, it could be done, but two other projects are in play: 1) University interest in even more housing near Harbin. If approved that will tie up a lot of space for construction equipment which permanent stands may get in the way of, and 2) when the Yates infrastructure becomes untenable, Shaw Field will likely be lost to construction which will leave soccer homeless. Cooper as a football field is not NCAA regulation for soccer (115'x 75'), but extending its field into where there could be stands might just cut it. Soccer fans shudder at playing "the beautiful game" on overworked FieldTurf but this is a likely outcome, just like Cooper/MSF is one of the only Division I field hockey facilities which does not play on wet Astroturf.

They've gotten pretty good at doing large-scale construction in tight spaces (like building the Silver Line in the median of a very busy toll road), so I don't think the Harbin patio flex-space building is a dependency from a space perspective. Soccer, however, is. It is already standard practice to move games onto MSF when the conditions at Shaw become degraded - they did it several times this season. And while it's a pretty terrible experience right now (and, in some ways, actively detracts from our preferred style of play), it will become less terrible once the permanent west stands are built. Tolerable.

Jan 1, 2019 20:31:57 GMT -5 DFW HOYA said:

Amidst all this, there is a saving grace that football was not exiled to War Memorial Stadium in Arlington or some sort of public park in Bethesda so that the field would have become yet another underground parking lot. Out of sight, out of mind at GU is usually out of luck.

The number of parking spots is capped in the Campus Plan, so another garage is not really a possibility.

Jan 1, 2019 20:31:57 GMT -5 DFW HOYA said:

For my two cents, and that's all they are, I'd like to see the temporary stands remain on the east end and allow cameras to show a full crowd on the west and not scenic views of the basement of Harbin on Stadium TV. Another alternative would be to employ what is used at places like Mississippi State--temporary box seats where fans could rent out five or seat "boxes" of 16-20 seats each, maybe get some special concessions and a couple of monitors to watch the game in style. I've got to think some people (or classes) would take advantage of it.

Worth investigating, depending on how easy it is to take them down on short notice for the aforementioned soccer reasons.

Jan 1, 2019 20:31:57 GMT -5 DFW HOYA said:

N.B.: I am a proponent of an annual game at Audi Field for local visibility, for recruiting, for student interest, and for competitive scheduling. Thee number of schools who want to plat at Cooper is not a large group. Harvard at RFK had more energy in it than 20 years of games on campus, at least for the first quarter. A game with Villanova would be a excellent opponent for such a venue, and then build from there. On the other hand, after the last two decades of interest I do not believe any Ivy or Patriot opponent would justify the expense.

I bet the Ivies would do it - what do they care about expenses?  Hah.  In any case, while I would be all in favor of it, the sense I'm getting is that DC United is being very restrictive in allowing use of Audi Field. I don't think they want football players messing up their pristine surface.

[DFW HOYA]

Re: Village A, it was a government project built a decade before the ADA. The idea that an architect would put wheelchaired residents on the top of any building flies in the face of current thinking both for accessibility as well as common public safety, but a lot about Village A would not be good policy today. As a contiguous plot of land, its configuration isn't ideal. (I don't know if any disabled students live on top there today, they certainly did not during my two years on that roof.)

Back then, our Village A neighbors constructed a wading pool atop the C402 patio; also not a good idea architecturally.

[RusskyHoya]

Maybe Lee's been reading HoyaTalk...

[RusskyHoya]

Jan 3, 2019 1:07:55 GMT -5 DFW HOYA said:

Re: Village A, it was a government project built a decade before the ADA. The idea that an architect would put wheelchaired residents on the top of any building flies in the face of current thinking both for accessibility as well as common public safety, but a lot about Village A would not be good policy today. As a contiguous plot of land, its configuration isn't ideal. (I don't know if any disabled students live on top there today, they certainly did not during my two years on that roof.)

Back then, our Village A neighbors constructed a wading pool atop the C402 patio; also not a good idea architecturally.

Fair. Seems like people generally like Village A, though! Even though - or because partly because - it's not the most efficient use of space. It reminds me a little of the design of the multi-level villas in Santorini built into the side of hills.

Anyway... let's talk about McDonough.

Jan 2, 2019 23:42:56 GMT -5 DFW HOYA said:

As discussed last year (http://www.hoyasaxa.com/sports/archives/022018.htm), I think Georgetown could do something serious with improving McDonough but chooses not to. So many times, the NIMBY element gets waved in the air when in many cases it doesn't apply. The neighbors didn't go into warp drive with Medstar in a project that is many, many times larger than a gym.

How quickly we forget. From February 2016: "Proposed Wing at GU Hospital Faces Criticism From Board"

A proposed new wing at MedStar Georgetown University Hospital faced harsh criticisms from the Old Georgetown Board last Thursday, with members saying the pavilion isn’t artfully designed and doesn’t adequately reflect planning principles for open space or pedestrian-vehicular interactions.

What ended up happening is that the University 'lent' MedStar the expertise it had developed in managing the neighbor relationship over the last several. Another way to characterize it would be that in this case, the University saved MedStar from itself. It also made a major concession to secure assent to the project: promising to turn the parking lot in front of St. Mary's Hall into a new quad, rather than putting any sort of building there (there will be underground parking).

Jan 2, 2019 23:42:56 GMT -5 DFW HOYA said:

They didn't throw up a legal fight when Cooper Field was projected at 4,602 seats, ostensibly less now.

Cooper Field was considered adequately 'dealt with' through the following stipulation: "Weekday athletic events at Cooper Field expected to draw over 100 visitors shall begin before 4:00PM or after 7:00PM, unless agreed to by the GCP." A key assumption underpinning that determination is that these weekday athletic events are not really big draws. Football plays on Saturdays, Georgetown lacrosse even when it was top flight was not drawing thousands of people on a school night, and field hockey has limited appeal. This is also why women's basketball can schedule McDonough games all they like - it's just not a threat to draw thousands of people in from off-campus during peak periods of congestion.

Jan 2, 2019 23:42:56 GMT -5 DFW HOYA said:

The loudest noises in the neighborhood adhere to a common principle: "Will it affect my real estate value?" Letting kids live in Burleith is perceived as a net negative, while projects deep in the campus do not (e.g., Healey Family Center). A larger capacity McD (not a new building) passes this test.

Honestly, at this point, the supply and demand imbalance is such that surrounding property values will remain astronomical even if someone plopped a giant New Philly Pizza in the middle of the neighborhood and installed moving sidewalks from Henle to ferry the drunken hordes there on a nightly basis. There's no shortage of property management companies willing to offer top dollar for any property, which they can then rent out to groups of students or recent graduates for many thousands of dollars per month. So the neighbors primary concern now is not their property values per se, but their quality of life and enjoyment of their (extremely valuable) properties.

The HFSC wasn't just perceived as not a 'net negative' - the University explicitly sold it as a way to keep students more firmly within the campus bubble. "Look, we're going to give them this great new space! With a BAR! So they can booze it up on University grounds and not disturb your peace and quiet!" It proved a winning argument.

Jan 2, 2019 23:42:56 GMT -5 DFW HOYA said:

First, OGB and DC Fine Arts Commission hearings are predicated upon external changes to any home, business or facility. What someone does inside the walls is, outside of common permits, acceptable. The 2000 plans were exactly that--an internal refurb. Quoting Joe Lang from the HOYA in 2000, "The neighbors have reacted well to the plan....if the University can find alternatives for students to socialize on campus, they won’t get into as much trouble in the neighborhood. This is what will sell with the people in the neighborhood."

Alright, here we start getting down to the meat of the issue. You are correct that the purview of OGB and the U.S. Commission on Fine Arts (it is a Federal entity, not a District one) is principally external aesthetics, rather than internal use. The same does not hold true for the DC Zoning Commission and the Campus Plan that it sanctions and enforces, however. Non-residential uses in a residentially-zoned area require the approval of DC zoning authorities... as do use modifications. A substantial increase in McDonough capacity would almost certainly trigger all manner of processes in which neighbors could raise objections about negative impacts, and the burden of proof ends up being on the University.

Jan 2, 2019 23:42:56 GMT -5 DFW HOYA said:

A 6,000 seat facility won't set the neighborhood on fire if planned correctly. Every day, thousands of workers get to Georgetown and get out of town through a mix of public and private transit options. Scheduling games on weekend and on break where GU can leverage the existing transit policies offers a way to build a no-net-increase in the number of vehicles in the neighborhood. Forcing people to use Metro and GUTS buses across Key Bridge is one option--I'll pass on the gondola talk for now. Mindful that students could/should occupy more seats in on-campus games as a matter of good practice, not all campus games need to be offered through a season ticket package. Bottom line, a 6,000 seat gym does not force 6,000 cars into Georgetown, far from it. Homecoming draws well over 4,000 guests in campus and Commencement/Reunion even more, and it's manageable. Properly supported by the University, this would be as well.

Let's dispense with the Homecoming/Commencement/Reunion comparison first - these largely take place on the weekend, so they do not 'get in the way' of neighbors' commutes. Again, what they care most about is their enjoyment of their property. Being stuck in local traffic significantly degrades the convenience and enjoyment of where they live. Commencement can indeed be a pain, albeit a once-a-year one known well in advance...which is why the University ends up having to put a lot of effort into mitigating the Friday impacts.

The critical question is indeed: how many cars would an X,XXX capacity at McDonough bring to the neighborhood? An intensive study would certainly be required...in order to deal with this:

As part of the 2017 Campus Plan,the University has agreed to establish both a performance commitment as well as an aspirational goal with respect to campus traffic volumes over the twenty-year term of the Plan. Specifically, the University will commit to managing its traffic impacts to ensure that evening peak hour SOV trips do not exceed a level that is eight and one-half percentage points lower than the projected evening peak hour impacts associated with the potential population growth outlined in this Campus Plan(which is largely equivalent to the growth permitted under the existing Campus Plan). In addition, as an aspirational goal, the University will strive to achieve a twenty percentage point reduction in evening peak hour impacts. Over the course of the next seven years, as a result of the University’s commitment to immediately deploy several TDM measures prior to experiencing any substantial campus population growth, the University anticipates a modest reduction in traffic-related impacts from current levels.

The University isn't in a position of just trying to prove that any increase wouldn't be that big... it is actively required to drive DOWN the number of cars coming to campus during the evenings. Can it do that even with regular use of McDonough for men's basketball? That's the case that the University would have to make, with convincing evidence to back it up.

Jan 2, 2019 23:42:56 GMT -5 DFW HOYA said:

The $22 million figure quoted for the dig down to get to 7,200 seats can be probably tripled in today's world. Villanova refurbed the John E. DuPont Pavilion for $65 million, and had both donor and university support. McDonough has neither of these. The donors limped to the finish on the Thompson Center and as noted above, Georgetown likes to set its own cadence on projects and Athletics isn't going to pick a fight about it.

Any work on McDonough is probably behind, in no particular order:

Soon: Downtown Campus for Public Policy
Soon: New dorm near Harbin
Sooner: Academic building adjacent to Regents
Someday: Lauinger expansion
Someday: Reiss refurb or tear-down
Someday: ICC upgrades
Within 10 Years: Yates rebuild or relocation

It would indeed be an expensive undertaking, and while one can argue about where any specific project falls in the order of precedence (or how extensive of a project it is - the McCourt space has already essentially been built by the developer, any University-specific buildout would be relatively low effort), it's clear that there's no shortage of needs competing for time and attention.

That being case... it makes it that much more important to start having this conversation in earnest *now.* At the time horizon we're talking about, things like the replacement or complete renovation of Capital One Arena, a Georgetown Metro (or gondola! ), etc. are no longer necessarily just abstractions. Of course, at that time horizon, there's no guarantee that anything remotely resembling current D-I college basketball is still around. That's fine - having multiple courses of action to choose from is prudent. But we have not seen for McDonough - or athletics more broadly - the sort of robust, inclusive campus needs assessment that we saw the University commission with Sasaki to serve as an input to the current Campus Plan. That should change, sooner rather than later.